Finally, women see some science recognition

The 2018 Nobel Prize will forever stand as a historic marker in the evolution of scientific recognition.

Pontus Lundahl/AP
Donna Strickland, left, receives the physics prize from King Carl Gustaf of Sweden, during the Nobel Prize award ceremony, in Stockholm, on Dec. 10, 2018.

The announcement of the Nobel Prizes always promises a big week for science. Whom the Norwegian Nobel Committee chooses to honor says a lot about where science is going.

This year’s awards, offer a window into more than just scientific development. The 2018 Nobel Prize will forever stand as a historic marker in the evolution of scientific recognition.

For only the third time in history, a woman, Donna Strickland, received the Nobel Prize for Physics. She shares the prize with Arthur Ashkin and Gérard Mourou for their work in the manipulation of lasers and the development of optical tweezers.

And for only fifth time ever, the trio of scientists sharing the Nobel Prize for Chemistry also includes a woman, Frances H. Arnold. The Nobel committee awarded Dr. Arnold half the share of the prize for her work on “the directed evolution of enzymes.” George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter each received a quarter share for their work in “phage display of peptides and antibodies.”

Women in science have long struggled to gain recognition. Recent films and books, such as “Hidden Figures” have opened the public’s eyes to silent contributions that women have made to science throughout history.

Reports that a moderator rejected an attempt to create a Wikipedia article about Dr. Strickland back in May further underscore the societal tendency to minimize the scientific achievements of women. It was not until Strickland received one of the most prestigious prizes in world that the online encyclopedia granted the optical physicist her own page.

For a more in depth look at the struggles facing women in science, be sure to check out this article from the Monitor's Amanda Pauslon.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.